Read the wikipedia entry on "Fair Use". It deals with the issue of non-profit educational use, and the fact that circuit courts aren't always letting that exception get by.
My stance is that the material produced by public employees is public property. Sure, some legislatures are trying to copyright their own laws, but this will eventually get to a court high enough to shut it down.
blatant fraud such as in this case allows for piercing the corporate veil and going after the personal assets and future earnings of the officers of a company.
That's pretty difficult to do without first winning a criminal case. I've experience of one such case - an outfit called "Starving Students Movers" which passed ex-cons off as "bonded" employees, and when the poor customer's stuff was stolen or just broken through negligence, the company paid for damages at a flat rate per pound of weight divided by the total weight of the shipment, calculated to give those customers a few cents for the dollar of value. All of this came out in testimony, and wasn't under seal. But that happened because a lawyer went after them about his friend's stuff, not for any class action. The lawyer knew he had nothing to make, even though it turned out the owners had Millions in assets.
I think you've got it backwards. For the case of coders and network admins, the copyrighted property would be considered a work-for-hire if it concerned the task they're employed for, even if the network admin wrote it when his pager went off at 2 AM. It would be copyrighted by the company.
You are mixing issues that don't really fit together. Everybody understands that children are our society's future. Finding the money to pay for their education is a social and political issue the U.S. handles poorly compared to some other nations that aren't that different from us socially or economically.
Second, the issue of childbirth. Well, a lot of people feel that because the bible says be fruitful and multiply, it isn't up to them to have enough sense to know to stop before there's nothing left to eat. The fact is that causing another person to be born is the one decision that you make in your life that will use as many resources, and create as much pollution, as every other decision you will make for your entire life put together. Having just one or two kids is all you need to do if you are concerned with the plight of the earth, and everybody is for educating them.
Obviously teacher pay is a problem our society has yet to deal with. But the issue of ownership of lesson plans becomes our problem when our participation in public school is coupled to material we must buy from only one provider at whatever cost they determine. That's going to lead to an economic-based difference in student performance.
Also, my employer claims the work I do in what I'm paid to do, even if I do it after hours. Working later than 9-5 isn't unique to teachers. I think the correct way to treat these materials is as a work for hire.
All of your examples where there was an actual class action suit are about companies that actually delivered products. Blue Rhino is a level of scam beyond these companies - their intent seems to have been to take money and not deliver anything. The point being that they have disbursed money which is now beyond collection through a class action suit. The Excell example is illuminating - nobody brought class action against them because they were bankrupt. Class action requires a large enough source of money to attract the attorney.
Sorry, I don't believe it. Scammers don't run a solvent enterprise that a class-action lawyer would approach. The lawyer wants money, the scam is a scam, not an operating business, and doesn't hang around with money for a lawyer to recover.
Yes. But you'd be shocked at the testimony I read, as an expert witness, from engineers and their managers. Incompetence is rampant. Unfortunately, the cases are settled and sealed, so I can't show you.
I wouldn't want to be the consulting company that provided Microsoft with this code. They're in some deep doo-doo now. Unfortunately, a lot of engineers are so clueless about licensing, as are their managers, that it is really possible that the person who did this didn't know it was a problem.
But this is not anything new for Microsoft. Microsoft started contributing to GCC around 10 years ago, for the former Unix services product. And this really serves their purpose if they are trying to scare people away from the GPL. "Microsoft forced to give up source code."
Where they are really hurting us now is in government policy and patented technology in interoperability facilities. Like the European Interoperability Framework going proprietary, and the MS-patented filesystem in next-generation FLASH devices. Consider stuff like that before you decide they are a "good citizen".
Remember Bob Metcalfe and all of the FUD he used to spout about Linux and Open Source?
Bob used to answer the phone when I had a problem with the 3com card in my VAX-780. Then he was riding high for a while. I'd imagine he took out lots of cash while the company was a leader.
if intelligence can be increased by something so simple as an increase in the expression of a single NMDA receptor subunit, why hasn't it already happened?
I interviewed at Cygnus reasonably early in the company's existence. Most of my interaction was with John Gilmore. John was a very rich man from his stock proceeds as the 4th employee of Sun Microsystems. For most of their existence he has been the main financial source behind EFF and FSF.
So, I am not sure how long Cygnus ran on "a few thousand dollars". Also, we had no proof that they were profitable, either, when picked up by Red Hat.
Yes, a private company has little incentive to publish its financials. But the corollary of this is that most of them are lying about their financial status, all of the time.
This is, I think, on its way to the 9th circuit appeals court due to Vernor v. Autodesk. Given that it doesn't apply to the right to create derivative works, I don't expect it to be a problem for Free Software licenses.
Well, what happens when the user wants to sell the TV? Or even give it away? Under the GPL, the user is supposed to provide the source code, or the right to receive it for a perioud of 3 years. In practice, the user doesn't know what source code is. IMO in this sort of situation the manufacturer must covenant to all users, dealers, etc., to provide the source-code distribution service for them. Note that on SONY's site, that's just what they call it: "Source code distribution service".
Well, the microwave oven or the TV would be a better example, because they contain software. SONY TVs come with the license for busybox at the back of the instruction manual.
I do not for work which I personally do (aka if you check you will find that I lean toward BSD).
Also, I believe people are free to do whatever they like with what they produce.
Oh come on. You were a company representative for how many years? You promoted MySQL to a great many different communities under the license scheme it had at the time.
And you're being self-contradictory. If people are free to do whatever they like with what they produce, why isn't the Oracle-Sun partnership free to do what they want with the copyrights that Sun bought?
What I object to is Richard's comments which I find counter to the notion at what is at the center of notion of the gpl.
I seem to remember the fsf suggesting once that developers assign copyright to them to block dual license strategies.
Richard would have much rather that Monty had donated the copyright to FSF 10 years ago. He didn't. He chose to make himself somewhere in excess of 100 Million dollars on the software through selling a dual-licensing company, and now he, through you, is complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed to do that.
Well, if Monty really thinks so he should get together some other investors and purchase the copyright.
You are welcome to do whatever you like with whatever you write Bruce, but I wouldn't suggest that other developers contribute their work to you, just so that you can change the license and make a buck off them.
Don't you realize how hypocritical this sounds? You made USD$1.1 Billion off of them!!!
Then, you sold the company, fairly, and Monty took a king's ransom in profit, and no doubt Brian took home some cash too.
I can't see that you have the slightest ethical stance to complain.
Although many small companies claim to have made money from an Open Source based business, there is no evidence that they actually have because they haven't published their financial information. We have actual evidence that only two companies have made money from an Open Source based business, MySQL, and Red Hat. Thus, MySQL accounts for 50% of the profitable companies that we have proof for.
Slashdot Mirror
Read the wikipedia entry on "Fair Use". It deals with the issue of non-profit educational use, and the fact that circuit courts aren't always letting that exception get by.
My stance is that the material produced by public employees is public property. Sure, some legislatures are trying to copyright their own laws, but this will eventually get to a court high enough to shut it down.
That's pretty difficult to do without first winning a criminal case. I've experience of one such case - an outfit called "Starving Students Movers" which passed ex-cons off as "bonded" employees, and when the poor customer's stuff was stolen or just broken through negligence, the company paid for damages at a flat rate per pound of weight divided by the total weight of the shipment, calculated to give those customers a few cents for the dollar of value. All of this came out in testimony, and wasn't under seal. But that happened because a lawyer went after them about his friend's stuff, not for any class action. The lawyer knew he had nothing to make, even though it turned out the owners had Millions in assets.
I think you've got it backwards. For the case of coders and network admins, the copyrighted property would be considered a work-for-hire if it concerned the task they're employed for, even if the network admin wrote it when his pager went off at 2 AM. It would be copyrighted by the company.
Yet.
The world needs more Open Source curricula. Let's take the resource we've already paid for and use them to help educate everyone.
You are mixing issues that don't really fit together. Everybody understands that children are our society's future. Finding the money to pay for their education is a social and political issue the U.S. handles poorly compared to some other nations that aren't that different from us socially or economically.
Second, the issue of childbirth. Well, a lot of people feel that because the bible says be fruitful and multiply, it isn't up to them to have enough sense to know to stop before there's nothing left to eat. The fact is that causing another person to be born is the one decision that you make in your life that will use as many resources, and create as much pollution, as every other decision you will make for your entire life put together. Having just one or two kids is all you need to do if you are concerned with the plight of the earth, and everybody is for educating them.
Also, my employer claims the work I do in what I'm paid to do, even if I do it after hours. Working later than 9-5 isn't unique to teachers. I think the correct way to treat these materials is as a work for hire.
All of your examples where there was an actual class action suit are about companies that actually delivered products. Blue Rhino is a level of scam beyond these companies - their intent seems to have been to take money and not deliver anything. The point being that they have disbursed money which is now beyond collection through a class action suit. The Excell example is illuminating - nobody brought class action against them because they were bankrupt. Class action requires a large enough source of money to attract the attorney.
Do you have any good examples?
Yes. But you'd be shocked at the testimony I read, as an expert witness, from engineers and their managers. Incompetence is rampant. Unfortunately, the cases are settled and sealed, so I can't show you.
I wouldn't want to be the consulting company that provided Microsoft with this code. They're in some deep doo-doo now. Unfortunately, a lot of engineers are so clueless about licensing, as are their managers, that it is really possible that the person who did this didn't know it was a problem.
But this is not anything new for Microsoft. Microsoft started contributing to GCC around 10 years ago, for the former Unix services product. And this really serves their purpose if they are trying to scare people away from the GPL. "Microsoft forced to give up source code."
Where they are really hurting us now is in government policy and patented technology in interoperability facilities. Like the European Interoperability Framework going proprietary, and the MS-patented filesystem in next-generation FLASH devices. Consider stuff like that before you decide they are a "good citizen".
Bob used to answer the phone when I had a problem with the 3com card in my VAX-780. Then he was riding high for a while. I'd imagine he took out lots of cash while the company was a leader.
It has, or you wouldn't be here :-)
When Ghostscript was dual-licensed, the GPL version was a year-old copy of the commercial version. Nobody does it that way any longer.
Monty Program AG is holding back the EC process with their plea for protection.
I interviewed at Cygnus reasonably early in the company's existence. Most of my interaction was with John Gilmore. John was a very rich man from his stock proceeds as the 4th employee of Sun Microsystems. For most of their existence he has been the main financial source behind EFF and FSF.
So, I am not sure how long Cygnus ran on "a few thousand dollars". Also, we had no proof that they were profitable, either, when picked up by Red Hat.
Yes, a private company has little incentive to publish its financials. But the corollary of this is that most of them are lying about their financial status, all of the time.
Well, I could say it's no more irrelevant than Debian. Sort of important, but not 10% as big as it might have been in other circumstances.
This is, I think, on its way to the 9th circuit appeals court due to Vernor v. Autodesk. Given that it doesn't apply to the right to create derivative works, I don't expect it to be a problem for Free Software licenses.
Well, what happens when the user wants to sell the TV? Or even give it away? Under the GPL, the user is supposed to provide the source code, or the right to receive it for a perioud of 3 years. In practice, the user doesn't know what source code is. IMO in this sort of situation the manufacturer must covenant to all users, dealers, etc., to provide the source-code distribution service for them. Note that on SONY's site, that's just what they call it: "Source code distribution service".
You know that anyone in a closet can make a new release, with or without money.
It is difficult for people to face their own amorality. The point is there, you simply refuse to see it.
Well, the microwave oven or the TV would be a better example, because they contain software. SONY TVs come with the license for busybox at the back of the instruction manual.
Because they wouldn't have survived very long. And none of us would be using MySQL. Don't you think that's self-defeating?
Oh come on. You were a company representative for how many years? You promoted MySQL to a great many different communities under the license scheme it had at the time.
And you're being self-contradictory. If people are free to do whatever they like with what they produce, why isn't the Oracle-Sun partnership free to do what they want with the copyrights that Sun bought?
I seem to remember the fsf suggesting once that developers assign copyright to them to block dual license strategies.
Richard would have much rather that Monty had donated the copyright to FSF 10 years ago. He didn't. He chose to make himself somewhere in excess of 100 Million dollars on the software through selling a dual-licensing company, and now he, through you, is complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed to do that.
Well, if Monty really thinks so he should get together some other investors and purchase the copyright.
Don't you realize how hypocritical this sounds? You made USD$1.1 Billion off of them!!!
Then, you sold the company, fairly, and Monty took a king's ransom in profit, and no doubt Brian took home some cash too.
I can't see that you have the slightest ethical stance to complain.
Well, given the size of the sample I think MuSQL's experience is extremely relevant. They aren't the only way to make money, just a good one.
Although many small companies claim to have made money from an Open Source based business, there is no evidence that they actually have because they haven't published their financial information. We have actual evidence that only two companies have made money from an Open Source based business, MySQL, and Red Hat. Thus, MySQL accounts for 50% of the profitable companies that we have proof for.